![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
A Year With Google Chrome
- Thread starter Terry Olaes
- Start date
Xaero_toast
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 393
What's the point in that? A browser is not exactly a processor intensive app, 1 core is really enough.
If firefox was multithreaded, the only advantage that would give, is when it crashes, all cores-->100%utilization=unresponsive system, FTL.
No, its multi-process.
You're probably a light user.
I facebook, flash games, while I'm tf2ing and alot of other crap.
When on firefox, my facebook and flash games slow down, found out it wasn't multi-threaded, switched to chrome, no slow down.
Problem Solved.
The reason is facebook is very javascript intensive, which has always been a Firefox weakness (until 3.5) and was Chrome's main strength (again, until Firefox 3.5).
I'd try 3.5 and then compare them. The new JS engine is much better than the one in 3, which should speed your stuff up.
And, as someone who routinely has over a dozen tabs open, including FB, it being single-threaded is completely irrelevant. Multi-threaded but inefficient at each one, is still inefficient.
I'm never going back!
Google Chrome isn't perfect either, they have problems on the back button, sometimes it just doesn't go back :'(
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
Firefox is a major hog on most systems I use despite OS and plugin/addon variations. Updated versions haven't done much to reduce it. Inevitably it'll bloat upwards of 500-700MB despite closing down tabs. Memory cache releasing plugin doesn't work. The annoying thing is that I could run it for a week, have it bloat, make one new tab with no history, close all the other tabs, clear the caches and it'll still be eating up 500-700MB on a single blank page. So I just go through the habit of saving my tabs, restarting FF every so often to keep it from chomping more memory than it should. Though I did have a fun incident about this time last year. FF leaked and took up 1.5GB physical memory, 1.7GB virtual. Couldn't even end task on it (was still running WinXP full time then) or use process killer to nuke it. On a system with 2GB installed, yeah. Brought my system down to its knees to where I had to power off reboot. Despite Linux, FF still has the same memory management issues.
I've used Chrome and have it installed on other systems, mine and roommates. Certain sites like Break.com, select Youtube embeds, ComedyCentral videos... the videos won't start in FF, probably due to the hosts file and adblock combination I use. I load the URL in chrome and the videos start up just fine.
On my netbook with the slow SSD (Aspire One, 8GB SSD with average writes of about 0.5MB/sec) inside of it... I use Opera 9.5 with disk cache disabled. Loads quickest and Hulu lags the least with it. Good enough for watching the occasional Conan episode or drama/comedy film before I turn in.
FF was good. When it was still called Phoenix. Now it's a hog and really needs to "go back to the basics", what Phoenix was created for in the first place.
As far as Chrome goes, someone complaining that FF uses less ram total compared with Chrome... that's because Chrome runs each tab as a separate process. Each lump of memory that is used actually gets freed when you close things off whereas you'll end up with a larger allocated heap that FF is still holding up despite having tabs closed.
Once some equivalent plugins start showing up for Chrome/Chromium, I could see myself dumping FF. Not yet at this point, though.
I've used Chrome and have it installed on other systems, mine and roommates. Certain sites like Break.com, select Youtube embeds, ComedyCentral videos... the videos won't start in FF, probably due to the hosts file and adblock combination I use. I load the URL in chrome and the videos start up just fine.
On my netbook with the slow SSD (Aspire One, 8GB SSD with average writes of about 0.5MB/sec) inside of it... I use Opera 9.5 with disk cache disabled. Loads quickest and Hulu lags the least with it. Good enough for watching the occasional Conan episode or drama/comedy film before I turn in.
FF was good. When it was still called Phoenix. Now it's a hog and really needs to "go back to the basics", what Phoenix was created for in the first place.
As far as Chrome goes, someone complaining that FF uses less ram total compared with Chrome... that's because Chrome runs each tab as a separate process. Each lump of memory that is used actually gets freed when you close things off whereas you'll end up with a larger allocated heap that FF is still holding up despite having tabs closed.
Once some equivalent plugins start showing up for Chrome/Chromium, I could see myself dumping FF. Not yet at this point, though.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
I seriously don't understand where people get this whole "Firefox is a hog" thing. Maybe the whole memory leak thing happened in the past, but I haven't seen anything of the sort since mid-Firefox 2 era. Check my post with the screenshots - Firefox, with 3 tabs open and all of my extensions running, uses nearly the same amount of memory (slightly less) than Chrome does with those same 3 tabs open. It apparently doesn't matter weather it's because Chrome runs in separate processes or not - because memory usage is pretty much the same, with Firefox having a slight upper hand. It also appears that Firefox is lighter on the CPU, as well. Well, that's obvious, since it's only 1 process as opposed to numerous processes depending on open tabs for Chrome.
I dunno, I've used Chrome extensively (as evident by my screenshot with Chrome apparently being well-used), and the whole multi-process thing CAN be convenient, but it's not some memory-saving, "so much better than the others", kinda program. I don't see how it's "back to the basics" when it uses pretty much the same amount of resources Firefox does. The thing that gets me about all this is it takes the same amount of memory as Firefox WITH all of my extensions running. So, to me, it seems that once Chrome has a more robust extension engine (which it WILL, because I've already made an Ad-Blocking javascript file via their extension test tutorial), then it will be much more bloated than Firefox is. So far, Chrome hasn't showed me anything worth switching for. It has a nice and simple layout, yes - but I've had the same exact layout for Firefox.
I appreciate the look of the Firefox 4 concept(s) much more, though, so IMO Firefox has Chrome beat in the looks department now, too.stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
Ok guys, lets stop this Chrome vs Firefox thing, remember, its IE who's the enemy.
Oh, don't worry, it's not Chrome vs. Firefox in my eyes - it's just Firefox.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
It DOES matter with the separate processes because when Firefox will consume 500MB with 10 tabs or one tab... as you close tabs in Chrome, the processes are shut down and whatever that one tab was consuming is released. Firefox, for some reason, just does not release the memory in its allocated heap once the tabs relating to it have been purged.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I have. I use Chrome from time to time, the coolest thing are the tabs, being to pull pages in and out of the browser, very cool!
But ultimately browsers is browsers and they all pretty much do the same thing though FF has the power of its huge add on library though all modern browsers are extensible.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
Did you see ANY of my posts in this thread? Lol!
I did. I have all major browsers installed, and other, "not-so-major-browsers" installed as well. While Chrome was a nice candidate, and probably my next choice to Firefox - if you have a "modern" amount of RAM installed on your PC (4gb or more) then memory usage - no matter matter which browser you use - won't even be even close to an issue.
Customizeability is a MAJOR deal breaker for me. So far, Chrome is the least customizable browser there is. Firefox just happens to be one of, if not THE most customizable browser there is. Until Chrome has the feature set of Firefox, then I'm sticking with Firefox. ...and, yes, I've Chrome extensively.
Xaero_toast
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 393
I don't know if this counts, but I've got chrome, FF, and IE on this computer, and I use each of them. Chrome is ok, but until it improves some more, FF is still the default.
The difference I see in them, is (IMO) FF has kind of stagnated, while chrome is improving.
D
Deleted member 80813
Guest
I upgraded to Chrome beta 3.0.195 on the first of September and plan on using it for the whole month.
So far I am really liking it. Much faster for the pages I go to.
As for extensions, I only used a couple and do not really miss them.
So far I am really liking it. Much faster for the pages I go to.
As for extensions, I only used a couple and do not really miss them.
FYI, Firefox uses the least amount of RAM of the major browsers (incidentally Chrome uses the most). This is with the 3.5 RC, but it should make it clear that your problem doesn't occur with a vanilla install. Maybe you have a rogue extension or some such eating up your RAM, but it isn't Firefox that is doing it: http://www.favbrowser.com/browser-m...-safari-4-opera-10-beta-google-chrome-30-dev/
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
*sigh*
Read my fucking posts before you respond to them.
I can use Firefox. Use it for a week straight so it gobbles up memory. Shut down all tabs but one, a blank tab with no history... and it will still consume 500MB of ram.
I can use Chrome. Use it for a week straight. Because every tab is a separate process, all of the memory each tab was using is released by the program. If I load up all the same tabs I had open in Firefox in Chrome... sure, it may use up more memory. But as I close down tabs that I no longer need open, Chrome's total memory usage will shrink. Firefox's WON'T.
I've duplicated this specific issue on vanilla installs. FF's memory management just sucks.
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 2,399
I have seen the most crashes with Firefox personally. I still use Firefox on occasion for the few sites that are diplayed by it best. It doesn't display things as fast as IE for me on my computers at my apartment in general. I have not used Google Chrome. Is it optimized for multiple cores like IE yet? I know Firefox is not last time I checked.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
Well, how many of us do you suspect keeps a browser open for a week straight? Even if I did - what is 500mb, anyways? That's pocket change on any modern system. I mean, that's not to say I want a simple web browser using that much RAM on an average basis, but the fact is - it doesn't. It only uses 40-60mb at a time, rarely (if ever) ever getting up in the 80-100mb margin.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
On load, a virgin Firefox install eats 60-80MB on most systems.
It CAN be a problem when you're installing it for people with low incomes and the best system they have is still under the 512MB mark.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
???
The screenshots I've provided in this thread are from my 6 month old Firefox install, with all of my extensions/add-ons/themes in full use. In fact, you can consider the install YEARS old if you'd like, as I regularly backup and use my user data from previous installs. Since 2.5, I've brought my user data with me. So that 40-80mb that my 3 year old Firefox install uses, with all of of my extensions and add-ons running, and numerous tabs open, is memory very WELL used, if you ask me. So, say you do have a "virgin install" of Firefox running on a system with 512mb of RAM...so? Is Chrome or IE or Opera going to be any better for them? No. If they have 512mb of RAM, then chances are they only get online to check their damned Yahoo, anyways.
Xaero_toast
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 393
My kids have computers I've built from parts I got for free. Those systems have XP, and 384 or 512MB. They can run firefox with a handful of tabs, an IM, and one or two other apps without pagefile thrashing. It's not a problem, if you have trimmed away all the automatic, self-starting taskbar programs.
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 2,399
What OS though? An XP lite variant?
Xaero_toast
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 393
XP Home, SP3, current patches.
About the only thing installed on these PC's is antivirus, firefox, msn messenger, and a small assortment of little kid games (spongebob, lego, etc kids games). I'd upgrade them with more ram, but they're pentium 3 systems, and are limited by the motherboard capacity.
It did just dawn on me, for as long as it's been since I worked on them, they may still be running firefox 2. IIRC, FF's automatic updates don't make major versions jumps on their own, and I don't think I've updated them.
About the only thing installed on these PC's is antivirus, firefox, msn messenger, and a small assortment of little kid games (spongebob, lego, etc kids games). I'd upgrade them with more ram, but they're pentium 3 systems, and are limited by the motherboard capacity.
It did just dawn on me, for as long as it's been since I worked on them, they may still be running firefox 2. IIRC, FF's automatic updates don't make major versions jumps on their own, and I don't think I've updated them.
Xaero_toast
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 393
Am I the only one who finds it ironic, that google toolbar is not available for google's browser?
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Am I the only one who finds it ironic, that google toolbar is not available for google's browser?
I had thought about this but if you think about it it makes a lot of sense. Why would Google's browser need Google's toolbar? Wouldn't they just roll it into their browser and say "Hey use Chrome because the Google' toolbar is built right in!"?
Well maybe they wouldn't say that but I think I made my point.
Xaero_toast
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 393
for the same reasons as any other browser.
If the same functionality of google toolbar can be achieved with chrome, I have not found it yet.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Not saying that you could I was just making up a high level excuse that could pass logical muster. I'm sure Google's plans are pretty grand so I just don't think that the toolbar will matter in the long. That or they simply haven't gotten around to it.
*sigh*
Read the fucking article I linked to before you respond to it.
Firefox 3.5 has no problem freeing used memory. In fact, it is the *best* at it. Firefox 3.5 has the *best* memory management across the board. I have no idea what problem you are having, but it clearly doesn't happen with a vanilla Firefox 3.5 install on a clean system. I have the same results as the article's all the time. I leave Firefox 3.5 running for weeks at a time as well - it never hogs memory.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
I'll go ahead and stay in Windows when I load up later tonight to go play L4D. I'll stay in it for a week and post my findings. I will be using a vanilla Firefox 3.5 installed to a different directory with no extensions. The most I will do is configure the appearance to my standard layout. I will also disable disk and memory cache to avoid skewing the results due to history.
Doubt anyone will see this in a week, but I'll have this thread bookmarked so I can show you how it look on my end. If there's one thing that I have learned about Firefox, its memory bloat and failure to free up resources is consistent across many different installs and configurations.
Why Windows? Because Firefox for Linux -sucks.- I find running the Win32 version of Firefox in Wine to be a lot more stable and responsive. This probably would be a bad metric to go by as it's Wine on top of Firefox and definitely not a standard user's setup.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
Again - you're going to be running the program in a very unrealistic nature. No one uses their browser for a week straight without closing it. I'm sure that ANY program being run for a week straight will start to cause issues of slowdown due to memory management. So, in essence - it will be your unrealistic findings vs. all of the findings and testing we've shown you that PROVES that Firefox is one of the lightest browsers available - even WITH many extensions and add-ons running.
So, have fun.
Again - you're going to be running the program in a very unrealistic nature. No one uses their browser for a week straight without closing it. I'm sure that ANY program being run for a week straight will start to cause issues of slowdown due to memory management. So, in essence - it will be your unrealistic findings vs. all of the findings and testing we've shown you that PROVES that Firefox is one of the lightest browsers available - even WITH many extensions and add-ons running.
So, have fun.
I leave Firefox running until Windows makes me restart. So do a lot of my coworkers. The unrealistic part is that he will be modifying options, options that could vary well have a major impact on exactly what he is testing.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
Indeed. Still, though - after weeks, any program will start to give problems. Most of the time it's as simple as quitting the program and restarting it.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
The reason I mentioned I would be disabling disk and memory cache is to eliminate the history factor from the equation. No cache, no history, no margin of error due to use.
ANY program?
So you're telling me they reboot servers and restart IIS and Apache daily, that 200+ day uptimes are just a fluke? I mean, I don't mean to split hairs here, but you could be a little less broad in your statement. An OS, by definition, is a program as well.
ordovician
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,625
*shrugs* I've found that a tweaked version of Safari (of all things) is the fastest for my netbook.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
Oh jeeze, you get my fucking point. I'm talking regular programs for everyday computers, not hardcore servers who have to be able to run constantly. Try web browsers, music players, even Photoshop. And, uh, OS'es - no shit. Why do you think the most common advice given is to "Shut down Windows, then turn it back on."? That's the universal fix, and it's because of memory issues that arise from Windows (a program ZOMG) running for extended periods of time.